Journal of Public Administration Research And Theory, 2016, 593–612

doi:10.1093/jopart/muv032
Article
Advance Access publication November 12, 2015

Article

The Intellectual Structure of Empirical Network

Research in Public Administration
Qian Hu, Sana Khosa, Naim Kapucu
University of Central Florida

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022

Address correspondence to the author at Qian.Hu@ucf.edu.

Qian Hu, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. Her research interests
include collaborative governance, network studies, policy informatics, and strategic and performance management. Her work has been
published or is forthcoming in academic journals such as Public Administration Review, The American Review of Public Administration,
Public Management Review, Administration & Society, Journal of Urban Affairs, American Behavioral Scientist, Journal of Computer
Informatics, Research Policy, and Journal of Public Affairs Education. She teaches public organization management, research methods,
and strategic planning and management courses.

Sana Khosa, Ph.D., is a visiting instructor at the School of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. She recently completed her PhD
in the Public Affairs doctoral program at the University of Central Florida. Her research interests include collaboration and networking in complex
environments and international disaster management.

Naim Kapucu, Ph.D., is professor of public policy and administration and director of the School of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida
(UCF). He was also the founding director of the Center for Public and Nonprofit management at UCF. His main research interests are network governance,
emergency and crisis management, decision-making in complex environments, social inquiry and public policy. His work has been published in Public
Administration Review, Administration & Society, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, the American Review of Public Administration,
and Public Management Review, among others. He teaches network governance, public service leadership, methodology courses.

The earlier version of is article was presented at the 2015 Public Management Research Association Conference and the 2014 American Society for
Public Administration Conference. We would like to thank the editors, reviewers, and many colleagues, especially Dr. H. Brinton Milward and Dr. Ines
Mergel for their constructive comments on the manuscript.

Abstract
The rapid growth of network research in public administration calls for a systematic review of
existing network scholarship. We performed bibliometric analysis and content analysis to iden-
tify the research that has had impact on empirical network research in public administration. We
examined the key theoretical foundations of existing network research with a focus on empirical
network articles that used social network analysis in their methods. We examined the evolution of
network scholarship in public administration, identified key network concepts, and analyzed the
research clusters. We further identified research gaps in existing empirical network literature and
proposed some ideas or topics for future research.

Introduction scholars have conducted systematic reviews of network

The shift from traditional bureaucratic models to col-
laborative governance has sparked significant interests
in networks and network scholarship. In recent years,
network research has gained attention from public
administration scholars (Isett et al. 2011). Since the call
for “treating networks seriously” (O’Toole 1997), many
research to reflect on the status and challenges of net-
work research in public administration (e.g., Agranoff
and McGuire 2001; Berry et al. 2004; Isett et al. 2011;
Lecy, Mergel, and Schmitz 2014; Provan and Lemaire
2012). In this article, we focus on the empirical network
research in public administration that has used social
network analysis (SNA) as part of their methods.

© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc. 593
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
594 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
SNA in this study refers to a broad range of methods
for analyzing theoretical constructs and concepts that are
defined as relational processes and outcomes (Scott 2013;
Wasserman and Faust 1994). Unlike conventional statis-
tical analysis that focuses on the attributes of actors, SNA
provides tools and opportunities to analyze the interac-
tions between actors and examine both the structural and
relational patterns of social systems and processes (Scott
2013). SNA allows for examining a wide range of social
relationships systematically and analyzing the social rela-
tionships as “central to both individual and systematic
outcomes” (Robins 2015, 13). Furthermore, SNA ena-
bles researchers to examine the social systems and pro-
cesses at multiple levels simultaneously—individual level,
dyadic level, triadic level, substructure level, and whole
network structures (Borgatti 2013; Robins 2015).
Over the past decade, the number of network arti-
cles in public administration that used SNA has rapidly
increased (Kapucu, Hu, and Khosa, 2014). Despite such
rapid growth, network research in public administra-
tion has been critiqued for lack of theory construction,
methodological rigor, and conceptual clarity (Berry
et al. 2004; Isett et al. 2011; Lecy et al. 2014). This study
conducts bibliometric analysis and content analysis to
review the fast growing network literature in public
administration—empirical network research that use
SNA as the primary method. The purpose of this study
is to understand the evolution of empirical network
research in public administration, to examine theoreti-
cal foundations and key concepts, and to analyze the
research clusters. We conducted two different types of
analyses—bibliometric analysis and content analysis.
The bibliometric analysis was on the references of the 76
articles, and it encompassed citation analysis, co-citation
analysis, and multidimensional scaling analysis in this
article. We drew 4,274 references cited by the 76 empiri-
cal network articles. Based on the citation counts, we
selected 72 frequently cited references out of the 4,274
references and did co-citation analysis of the 72 refer-
ences. We also conducted the multidimensional scaling
analysis of the top 20 references. By analyzing the cited
references, we were able to map the frequently cited the-
ories and highly influential research on public adminis-
tration network research. The findings of bibliometric
analysis helped identify the influential research, key the-
ories, and cluster of research focus. Different from the
bibliometric analysis, the content analysis was focused
on the 76 articles themselves. We read each of the 76
articles carefully and used preestablished coding themes
to code the key network concepts in these empirical net-
work studies. These two methods can complement each
other and enrich our understanding of the development
of empirical network research. Furthermore, we identi-
fied research gaps in existing empirical network litera-
ture and proposed future research ideas.
Empirical Network Research in Public
Administration
Since 1997, more than 600 articles on networks have
been published in public administration journals
(Kapucu, Hu, and Khosa 2014). Networks have been
used as metaphors to describe relationships between
entities (Keast 2014), or as organizational forms that
differ from markets and hierarchies (Powell 1990).
Most public administration scholars define networks
either as interorganizational arrangements, or “inter-
est-mediation processes,” or as a new governance struc-
ture that aims to achieve a common goal that cannot be
achieved—or that cannot be achieved effectively—by
one single organization (Agranoff and McGuire 2001;
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
Keast 2014, 20; Koliba et al. 2010; O’Toole 1997).
A number of reviews have been conducted to exam-
ine the status of network scholarship in public admin-
istration. Researchers have suggested that network
research needs to clarify key concepts to enhance its
methodological rigor and to derive solid and integrated
theoretical frameworks (Berry et al. 2004; Borgatti,
Brass, and Halgin 2014; Isett et al. 2011; Lecy et al.
2014; Provan, Fish, and Sydow 2007; Provan and
Lemaire 2012; Robinson 2006). Researchers have also
noted that network research using SNA remains lim-
ited (Hwang and Moon 2009; Lecy et al. 2014). This
study examines empirical network literature in public
administration, with a particular focus on research
that has applied SNA as part of their methods. In this
study, we focus on network research that has con-
ducted network analysis of management, policy, and
governance issues, excluding research that uses net-
works only as a metaphor or as a concept.
A few attempts have been made to map the devel-
opment of network research in a broad management
domain. For instance, Brass et al. (2004) classified
network research based on its levels of analysis,
which they grouped as interpersonal, intraorganiza-
tional, and interorganizational. They analyzed the
network antecedents and consequences. Research on
network antecedents focuses on factors that contrib-
ute to the formation and development of networks,
whereas network consequence literature examines
outcomes that result from networks at different lev-
els. Another review by Carpenter, Li, and Jiang (2012)
used a similar lens and grouped network research into
four categories based on two dimensions: the level of
analysis (interpersonal versus interorganizational)
and the research interest on the formation or change
of networks or on the consequences of networks. For
each category of network research, they discussed the
relevant network concepts, major theories, measures,
and methods of analysis. Provan, Fish, and Sydow
(2007) reviewed 26 empirical network-level stud-
ies on interorganizational networks and divided the
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
literature into two groups of studies: “(a) network
properties and processes associated with the whole
networks, such as structure, development or evolu-
tion, and governance and (b) network outcomes”
(489). Provan et al.’s (2007) review focused on inter-
organizational networks at the network level and
discussed the network constructs in detail. However,
these review articles were mostly focused on empiri-
cal network studies in other disciplines such as man-
agement and sociology.
A bibliometric analysis can complement existing
reviews and explore future research opportunities.
Bibliometric analysis performs statistical analysis of the
citation data, a method whose value has gone largely
unexplored in previous reviews in public administra-
tion. This type of analysis is useful for identifying influ-
ential works and examining citation patterns, clusters
of research topics and streams, cross-boundary knowl-
edge exchange, and the intellectual structure of a field
(Andrés 2009; Chabowski, Mena, and Gonzalez-
Padron 2011; McCain 1990; Ramos-Rodríguez and
Ruiz-Navarro 2004). In recent years, a few scholars
have applied bibliometric analysis to examine the
politics-administration dichotomy (Georgiou 2014),
to examine the intersection of public administra-
tion research and organization studies (Vogel 2014),
and to identify influential network research and sub-
groups of network research (Hwang and Moon 2009).
Using bibliometric analysis, Hwang and Moon (2009)
examined network literature published in 26 pub-
lic administration journals. They identified influen-
tial scholars and top-cited works and presented key
subtopics in network research. Their study, however,
did not focus on empirical network scholarship, nor
did it examine the theoretical foundations of exist-
ing network research. This study expands on previous
reviews of network research in public administration
and applies bibliometric analysis and content analysis
to identify key theories and constructs and to exam-
ine the intellectual structure of empirical network
research.1 Furthermore, we analyze the widely cited
references and examine the citation patterns to reveal
the relationships among research topics and schools of
thoughts. Through the content analysis of the 76 empiri-
cal network article, we can further examine the key con-
cepts and trace the relationships among these theoretical
concepts.
1 By analyzing cited references, we were able to identify the most frequently
cited references, among which a few are theoretical works such as
social capital and social structure theories by Granovetter (1973), Burt
(1992), Uzzi (1997), and Coleman (1988, 1990). Through co-citation analysis
and multidimensional scaling analysis, we can visualize the clusters of
references that are cited together in other research articles. The analysis
of these clusters of research can also reveal their theoretical focus.
595
Bibliometric Analysis and Content Analysis of
Empirical Network Research
Bibliometric analysis serves two purposes in this study:
It identifies the influence or impact of existing research
and also examines links and collaboration both among
researchers and across disciplines. Citation analysis
and co-citation analysis are the common techniques
used for bibliometric analysis (Ramos-Rodríguez
and Ruiz-Navarro 2004). As part of the bibliometric
analysis, the multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis
helps examine the theoretical foundations of existing
empirical network research and establishes the basis
for developing future research agendas. It also reflects
on the evolution of empirical network research over
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
the past decades through a systematic review of the
cited references. Furthermore, bibliometric analysis
helps identify research clusters, examine the existing
research gaps, and propose future research needs.
We used the list of 39 public administration journals
developed by Forrester and Watson (1994) and Bernick
and Krueger (2010) to identify empirical network research
that has applied SNA in public administration. Their list
of public administration journals was developed based on
the mission statements of the journals. It included journals
that publish research on broad topics in public adminis-
tration or public policy, as well as research covering the
subfields of public administration, including public budg-
eting and finance, public personnel administration, and
public organization studies (Bernick and Krueger 2010;
Forrester and Watson 1994). The appendix includes the
39 journals we searched for empirical network research.
We conducted four steps in our search to identify empiri-
cal network research in public administration. First, we
searched the titles, abstracts, or keywords of publications
from January 1997 to January 2013 in all 39 journals,
using keywords such as networks, network analysis, col-
laboration, and collaborative. Although selecting a date
as the baseline can be somewhat arbitrary, we selected
January 1997 as the beginning year for several reasons.2
It was in the late 1990s that network research started to
draw much attention from public administration scholars.
2 We acknowledge the potential limitations of using 1997 as the baseline
for literature search in the conclusion section. We read carefully
empirical network research published before 1997 when writing this
manuscript, although we used 1997 as the cutoff line to search empirical
network research for the following bibliometric analysis and content
analysis. The list of 76 articles may not have included the empirical
network articles published before 1997, such as Provan and Milward
article in 1995, “A preliminary theory of interorganizational network
effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health
systems.” Yet this article and other important works were included in
the reference database for bibliometric analysis due to their impact on
the evolution of empirical network research in public administration. We
were still be able to include many important works published before 1997
through analyzing the references included in the 76 articles published
from 1997 onwards, which was reflected in table 2.
596 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
O’Toole published his article of “treating networks seri-
ously” in 1997, which discussed the importance of net-
works to public administration theory and practice. Since
then, many scholars have used 1997 as the baseline to
reflect on the development of network research in pub-
lic administration (e.g., Hwang and Moon 2009; Lecy
et al. 2014; Robinson 2006). Using 1997 as the base
year allows this study to join and contribute to existing
discussions about network research in public administra-
tion. Our first round of searching found 1,279 articles in
the 39 journals. The next step was to read the abstracts
of the 1,279 articles to identify articles that focused on
networks. We excluded articles that discussed networks
as metaphors (without any definition or conceptualiza-
tion of networks) and the broader themes of collabora-
tive governance and collaboration. In the second step,
we identified approximately 677 articles as focusing on
networks. In the third step, we further narrowed down
the 677 articles to identify a subset of empirical network
articles that used SNA as part of their methods. A total of
136 articles were identified in the third step. The last step
was to identify articles that discussed networks relating
to public administration.
A number of articles published in journals such
as Organization Studies, the Journal of Management
Studies, and Human Relations focused on issues that
fall outside the realm of public administration and
public policy, such as interorganizational trust in pri-
vate companies. Thus, the final screening left us with
a total of 76 articles for further analysis. The analysis
procedure of this study is presented in figure 1. Having
collected empirical network literature, we conducted
citation analysis to identify the research that has had
impact on network scholarship in public administra-
tion. Then, we performed a co-citation analysis of the
Figure 1. Study Procedure
most cited documents to examine theoretical founda-
tions. To further understand the network constructs
and the relationships among these constructs, we con-
ducted content analysis of the 76 empirical network
articles.
The premise of citation analysis is that researchers
“cite documents they consider to be important in the
development of their research” (Ramos-Rodríguez and
Ruiz-Navarro 2004, 981). In general, the frequently
cited works are more influential in the development of
the fields or subfields than the less frequently cited works
(Chabowski, Mena, and Gonzalez-Padron 2011; Ramos-
Rodríguez and Ruiz-Navarro 2004). To conduct citation
analysis, we drew all citations from the 76 peer-reviewed
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
articles and entered all the 4,274 citations into the bib-
liometric analysis software, BibExcel. Then, we ran the
frequency of citation of the bibliographic references in all
76 articles to identify the works that have a great impact
on the empirical network research in public administra-
tion. The frequency counts the number of citations a
reference receives from all the 76 articles. We identified
72 references that have been cited at least five times by
the 76 articles. The 72 references were used for building
a co-citation network. The cell in a co-citation network
indicates the frequency of citations that two works receive
from other publications. For instance, if the matrix cell for
reference 1 and reference 2 has a value of 3, this means
that references 1 and 2 were co-cited by three out of the
76 network articles. Two types of co-citation analysis
were conducted. First, co-citation analysis was performed
based on the 20 most frequently cited documents, which
had been cited 10 times or more by the 76 articles. The
cutoff was made to increase the stability of the co-citation
analysis model and to focus on the intellectual structure of
existing empirical network research (Chabowski, Mena,
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
and Gonzalez-Padron 2011). Second, network visualiza-
tion was conducted using 72 works that had been cited at
least five times by the 76 network articles to examine the
evolution of empirical network research.
Co-citation analysis calculates the number of net-
work articles that cite both references listed in the cor-
responding row and column in a matrix. The number
of co-citations for the 20 most cited references were
counted and arranged on a 20-by-20 matrix using the
software BibExcel. Then, we used Pearson correlation
r to measure the similarities among pairs of references
(Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruiz-Navarro 2004; White
and McCain 1998). We used Pearson r rather than
the original co-citation counts, because Pearson r can
better capture “the degree of similarity between their
co-citation profiles,” and it “overcomes differences
of scale” between a highly frequently cited document
and other very similar documents with less frequent
citations (Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruiz-Navarro 2004,
985). Two works that are often co-cited but not with
other documents are considered to have strong simi-
larity or correlations (Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruiz-
Navarro 2004).
The next step is to conduct MDS in order to provide
a visual map of the pattern of proximities (Borgatti,
Everett, and Johnson 2013) among the top-cited 20
references. The proximity data in this study is the
correlation r between references. We used a correla-
tion matrix as similarities for the MDS to reveal the
structure underlying the cited references. The UCINET
software program places pairs of references with the
largest correlation values near each other on the map
in a two-dimensional space. By doing this, the MDS
will produce clusters of references that are closer to
each other than to other references. In this study, we
performed the nonmetric MDS procedure, which
does not convert these correlation values directly into
Euclidean distances. The nonmetric MDS considers
only rank order and minimizes the difference between
the input proximities and the resulting mapping dis-
tances, which is measured by “stress”.3 The stress
value measures the discrepancy between “the distances
among points implied by MDS map and the matrix
input” (Borgatti 1997, 3), in this study, correlation sim-
ilarities. The smaller the stress is, the better goodness of
fit. Lower stress values suggest better “goodness of fit.”
3 The “goodness of fit” measure for the multidimensional scaling
analysis is named “stress.” The commonly used formula for calculating
the stress statistic is called “Kruskal Stress” (Kruskal and Wish 1978).
∑ ∑(f (x ij ) − d ij )2
The formula is: .
∑ ∑ d ij2
The symbol dij represents the Euclidean distance between points i and j on the
map. In nonmetric scaling, the f (xij) is a “weakly monotonic transformation of
the input data that minimize the stress function” (Borgatti 1997, 4).
597
Stress values above .2 are not acceptable. Stress values
below .1 are considered a good fit, and values between
.1 and .2 are considered acceptable levels (Borgatti,
Everett, and Johnson 2013; Scott 2013). The results of
the co-citation analysis and MDS will be reported in
the following findings section.
We conducted content analysis of the 76 empirical
network articles to further define key network con-
cepts in public administration. We read all 76 articles
and coded the key network concepts studied in each
article. We used the key theoretical concepts identified
by Provan, Fish, and Sydow (2007) and Carpenter,
Li, and Jiang (2012) as the baseline to develop our
coding themes. To ensure coding reliability, the two
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
coders discussed and developed the coding themes,
shown in table 1. In addition to the key constructs
suggested in previous research, we added “network
comparison and development” to include research
that compares different networks and their structural
properties or performance, or research that conducts
longitudinal studies of network development. We
also differentiated “network configurations” from
“network structures.” In this study, network con-
figurations refer to individual properties of nodes to
examine topics such power, influence, brokerage, cen-
trality, and leadership. In contrast, network structures
refer to the structural properties of the network such
as density, centralization, subnetworks, and cliques.
To strengthen our coding reliability, we conducted
pilot coding before the formal coding process (Bowen
and Bowen 2008). Intercoder reliability for the pilot
test was approximately .69. Intercoder reliability for
the formal coding was improved to about .92. Table 1
lists the coding themes we used to code the 76 net-
work articles and a few example articles for each key
network concept.
Theoretical Foundations and Intellectual
Structure: Results from Systematic Analysis
This section presents the results of the citation and co-
citation analyses of the 4,274 references cited in the
76 network articles, followed by the findings of our
content analysis. In this section, we first report the cita-
tion counts and identify influential works in network
scholarship according to citation frequency. Next, we
discuss the results of MDS and examine the intellec-
tual structure manifested in existing network research.
Then, we discuss the development of network research
in public administration based on the citation analy-
sis. Furthermore, we map the key network constructs
based on content analysis of the 76 network articles.
Research gaps are identified and future research needs
and directions are discussed throughout the results
section.
598 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4

Table 1. Coding Themes and Example Articles

Network Constructs Description Articles (Examples)

Network formation Examination of network emergence
or formation of network.
Network Ego-centric/individual properties of
configurations nodes, using network measures
such as centrality to examine
power, influence, brokerage,
centrality, leadership.
Network structure Structural properties of the network
such as density, centralization,
subnetworks, and cliques.
Gelles et al. 2009; Raab 2002;
Stephens, Fulk, and Monge 2009
Galaskiewicz et al. 2006; Kapucu
2006; Pappas and Wooldridge
2007; Vidovich and Currie 2012;
Zeemering 2012
Cao and Prakash 2011; Feiock et al.
2010; Ingold 2011; Lee, Feiock,
and Lee 2012a; LeRoux and
Carr 2010; Milward et al. 2010;
Provan and Huang 2012

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022

Network governance
Network outcomes
Network comparisons
and development
Coordination mechanisms
and processes for collective
action or interorganizational
collaborations, or mode of
governance.
Network performance or
effectiveness, or the impact of
network positions or structures
on individual participants.
Comparing different networks
and their structural properties
or performance, or longitudinal
studies of network development.
Milward et al. 2010; Robins, Bates,
and Pattison 2011; Waterhouse
and Keast 2012; Weir, Rongerude,
and Ansell, 2009
Akkerman, Torenvlied, and Schalk
2012; Dekker et al. 2010; Provan
et al. 2013; Provan et al. 2009;
Sandström and Carlsson 2008
Chen and Krauskopf 2013; Choi
and Brower 2006; Melker and Wu
2009; Poole 2008; Varda 2011

Top Citations in Empirical Network Research
To identify influential works on network research in
public administration, we calculated the times that
each of the bibliometric references of the empirical
network articles had been cited by the 76 articles.
Counting the citations helped us explore the impact
of works on network scholarship, and the influence
on network research that has SNA as primary meth-
ods in particular. Table 2 presents 72 frequently cited
works, with five or more citations each. Among the
top 20 cited works, three are network methods books
by Wasserman (1994), Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman
(2002), and Scott (2000), and two articles on network
measures. The three methods books introduced key
network concepts and analysis tools to public admin-
istration. The software introduced in Borgatti et al.’s
book—UCINET—is a widely used network analysis
software in public administration. Freeman’s (1979)
article on “centrality” and Marsden’s (1990) article on
“network data and measurement” set the foundation
for measuring network positions and roles.
Among the top 20 cited works, many come
from sociology (e.g., Burt 1992; Coleman 1988,
1990; Granovetter 1973; Powell 1990; Uzzi 1997;
Wasserman and Faust 1994). Network research in
sociology has had great influence on the development
of network research in the field of public administra-
tion. Social capital and social structure theories are
paramount for network research in public administra-
tion (Kapucu 2006; Lee et al. 2012b). Granovetter’s
(1973) research on strengths of weak ties and social
structure have had substantial impact on network
research in public administration, along with Burt’s
(1992), Uzzi’s (1997), and Coleman’s (1988, 1990)
research on structural holes, social embeddedness,
and social capital. Organizational theories also take a
prominent role in shaping network research in public
administration. Pfeffer and Salancik’s (1978) work on
resource dependency theory has been cited 11 times
in 76 articles to explain the necessity of network for-
mation and development. In addition, Powell’s (1990)
article about the “network form of organization” is
another important conceptual work that described the
features of networks and clarified the key differences
among markets, hierarchies, and networks.
The top 20 cited references included only a few
works by public administration researchers. Provan
and Milward’s research on network effectiveness of
community mental health networks in 1995 had been
cited by more than one-third of the 76 network arti-
cles. Provan and his colleagues’ follow-up conceptual
work on network effectiveness and network govern-
ance also received high citations (Provan et al. 2007;
Provan and Kenis 2008; Provan and Milward 2001).
O’Toole’s 1997 article about network research agen-
das has also received much attention. Schneider et al.’s
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4 599

Table 2. Most Cited 72 References in 76 Empirical Network Research Articles

Works Cited Citation Works Cited Citation

1 Wasserman 1994 37 29 Hansen 1999 7

2 Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman 2002 29 29 O’Toole and Meier 2004 7
3 Provan and Milward 1995 27 39 Human and Provan 2000 6
4 Freeman 1979 21 39 Powell, Koput, and Smith-Doerr 1996 6
5 Granovetter 1973 18 41 Snijders 2002 6
6 Burt 1992 16 41 Ostrom 1990 6
7 Granovetter 1985 15 41 Oliver 1990 6
8 Provan and Milward 2001 13 41 Krackhardt 1990 6
9 Uzzi 1997 12 41 Provan and Sebastian 1998 6
10 Burt 2005 12 41 Meier and O’Toole 2003 6
10 Coleman 1988 12 41 Snijders et al. 2006 6
10 O’Toole 1997 12 41 Gould and Fernandez 1989 6

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022

13 Scott 2000 11 41 Zaheer, McEvily, and Perrone 1998 6
13 Pfeffer and Salancik 1978 11 41 Putnam 1995 6
15 Provan and Kenis 2008 10 41 Lin, Cook, and Burt 2001 6
15 Provan, Fish, and Sydow 2007 10 41 Agranoff 2001 6
15 Powell 1990 10 41 Ostrom 1998 6
15 Schneider et al. 2003 10 54 Thurmaier and Wood 2002 5
15 Coleman 1990 10 54 Kapucu 2006 5
15 Marsden 1990 10 54 Kraatz 1998 5
21 Agranoff and McGuire 2003 9 54 Kilduff and Tsai 2003 5
21 Putnam 2000 9 54 Lubell et al. 2002 5
21 DiMaggio and Powell 1983 9 54 Axelrod 1984 5
21 Uzzi 1996 9 54 Feiock 2007 5
25 Gulati 1995 8 54 Feiock and Scholz 2010 5
25 Hanneman and Riddle 2005 8 54 Jones et al. 1997 5
25 Feiock 2004 8 54 Knoke 1990 5
25 Brass et al. 2004 8 54 Bardach 1998 5
29 Isett and Provan 2005 7 54 Milward and Provan 1998 5
29 Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993 7 54 Williamson 1985 5
29 Robins et al. 2007 7 54 Huang and Provan 2007 5
29 Alter and Hage 1993 7 54 Heclo 1978 5
29 Provan, Isett, and Milward 2004 7 54 Knoke and Kuklinski 1982 5
29 Laumann and Knoke 1987 7 54 Fernandez and Gould 1994 5
29 Weible and Sabatier 2005 7 54 Bonacich 1987 5
29 Gulati and Gargiulo 1999 7 54 Ahuja 2000 5

(2003) research on environmental policy networks is
among the top 20 works. Their work on the national
estuary program applied SNA to examine the impor-
tance of environmental policy networks and the role of
federal and state policies in “building consensual insti-
tutions” (143).
The Evolution of Network Research in Public
Administration
Reviewing changes in frequently cited works over time
can help researchers reflect on the evolution of network
research in public administration. Figure 2 displays in
chronological order the 72 most frequently cited works
in empirical network research. Documents that are
published in the same year are displayed in the same
row and in the same color. The node size is propor-
tionate with the citation frequency. Although networks
and collaborations have been a research interest for
decades, network research gained much attention in
public administration within the past 10 years. In the
1990s, Provan and Milward’s (1995) early work on
network effectiveness and O’Toole’s (1997) work on
network research agendas were the pioneering studies
that have had far-reaching impact on network research
today. The topics studied through the network lens
have become more diverse (Kapucu et al. 2014). Public
administration researchers have applied SNA to exam-
ine health and social service delivery (e.g., Milward
et al. 2010; Provan and Huang 2012; Provan, Isett,
and Milward 2004; Valente 2010), regional economic
development (Lee, Feiock, and Lee 2012a), emergency
management (Kapucu 2006), education performance
(Schalk, Torenvlied, and Allen 2010), transportation
policy (Henry, Lubell, and McCoy 2011), environmen-
tal management (e.g., Jasny 2012; Robins, Bates, and
600
Figure 2. Evolution of Network Research in Public Administration
Pattison 2011; Weible 2011), and nonprofit develop-
ment and growth (e.g., Galaskiewicz, Bielefeld, and
Dowell 2006; Isett and Provan 2005).
While social capital theory and resource depend-
ency theory have continued to serve as the funda-
mental theories for network research over the past
few decades, multiple theories have merged and have
been applied to build the theoretical foundations for
network research. The highly cited theories before
the 1990s are primarily research on social capital,
social structures and embeddedness, institutional
and organizational behavior (e.g., Coleman 1988;
DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Granovetter 1973;
1985), research on resource dependency (e.g., Pfeffer
and Salancik 1978), and methodological research
on networks and SNA (Freeman 1979; Knoke and
Kuklinski 1982). In the most recent decade, scholars
have applied a wider array of theories in network
research, including institutional collective action
theory (Feiock and Scholz 2010; Ostrom 2005),
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell 1983),
and complexity theory (Axelrod 1984). Meanwhile,
network research has made methodological advance-
ments: SNA, as a method to examine social structures,
processes, and social interactions, was introduced to
public administration in the 1990s. Figure 2 shows
that public administration scholars have cited more
books and articles about SNA since the 1990s (e.g.,
Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman 2002; Marsden 2005;
Scott 2000; Wasserman 1994). More recently, net-
work research in public administration has gone
beyond descriptive network research to applying
inferential network analysis for analyzing manage-
ment issues and policy problems.
Theoretical Foundations in Network Scholarship
To trace the theoretical foundations of empirical net-
work research in public administration, we conducted
MDS to identify research clusters that include stud-
ies that are closely related to one another. The MDS
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
identified four research clusters among the top 20
frequently cited works. The goodness of fit index,
“stress” is .13, which is considered an acceptable level
of stress value (Borgatti, Everett, and Johnson 2013;
Scott 2013). The visualization of MDS results in fig-
ure 3 shows the importance of social capital and social
embeddedness, network management, network effec-
tiveness, resource dependency theory, policy networks,
and SNA in existing network research.
Social Capital
The bottom-right side of figure 3 includes research
on social capital—Burt’s (1992, 2005) studies on
structural holes and Granovetter’s (1973) research on
the strengths of weak ties. Scholars have categorized
social capital into bonding social capital, bridging
social capital, and linking social capital (Putnam 2002;
Woolcock 1998). Bonding social capital refers to val-
ues and resources that emerge from social networks
composed of homogeneous groups, whereas bridging
social capital refers to connections among heteroge-
neous groups (Putnam 2002). Bridging social capital,
or “weak ties,” to use Granovetter’s (1973) term, can
bring in information and resources that homogenous
groups do not have access to. Another type of social
capital—linking social capital—involves connections
with institutions or individuals with authority, which
may help individuals or communities gain resources or
power (Woolcock 1998).
Social capital is used to study interpersonal net-
works as well as interorganizational relationships and
its impact on organizational structure and network
performance (Burt 1997; Enemark, McCubbins, and
Weller 2012; Lin, Cook, and Burt 2001; Proven and
Lemaire 2012). The existence of social capital can help
reduce transaction costs, enhance trust and commit-
ment, and encourage cooperative behavior in collective
Figure 3. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) of Top 20 Cited Works
601
actions (Agranoff 2007; Fukuyama 1995; Proven and
Lemaire 2012; Putnam 2000). Social capital theory
has been frequently cited in the empirical network
scholarship. A number of articles applied the relational
perspective and differentiated between bridging and
bonding social capital. These articles used the strength
of ties as a measure of social capital (Lee and Kim
2011), described the types of connections that actors
have in a network (Shrestha 2012) and explained the
structural patterns of contractual ties among local gov-
ernment (Andrew 2009).
Social Embeddedness
Different from yet closely related to the concept of
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
social capital is social embeddedness. Granovetter’s
(1985) and Uzzi’s (1997) research on social embed-
dedness is in another cluster at the left side of figure 3.
Actors are embedded in interpersonal connections and
social structures (Granovetter 1985). Social embedded-
ness can provide channels through which network par-
ticipants receive resources and other benefits (Carpenter,
Li, and Jiang 2012). Social embeddedness can take on
two forms—relational embeddedness and structural
embeddedness. Relational embeddedness focuses on
concrete network ties and what network connections
and network closure can bring to network participants
(Burt 2005; Carpenter, Li, and Jiang 2012). Structural
embeddedness examines the influence of network struc-
tural characteristics such as structural holes on network
participants (Burt 1992; Uzzi 1997). Hence, social capi-
tal can be assessed by examining the location of indi-
vidual nodes in a network (Burt 1997) or by focusing on
the “embedded resources” with which individuals have
ties, such as wealth or social status (Lin 1999, 36). Burt
assumed that “structural holes” in relationships produce
social capital because “people can broker connections
between otherwise disconnected segments” (2001, 1).
602 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
Lin (1999) noted that both structural and positional
attributes of individual nodes influence their possession
of social capital.
Compared with research on relational embedded-
ness, relatively few network articles have focused on
the structural aspect of social embeddedness. A few
researchers have treated structural embeddedness as a
type of resource (Park and Rethemeyer 2012) and have
examined the relationships among network structures
and network performance (Sandström and Carlsson
2008), organizational commitment (Lee and Kim
2011), or coordination of action (Robins, Bates, and
Pattison 2011). Empirical network research in pub-
lic administration has focused more on the relational
aspect of social capital and examined the presence of
bridging or bonding social capital. Additional research
is needed to examine structural embeddedness and its
effects on individual network participants and on net-
work effectiveness.
Network Effectiveness
The upper-left side of figure 3 is taken by Provan and
Milward’s (2001) research on network effectiveness,
O’Toole’s (1997) article on network research agendas,
and Powell’s (1990) article on organizational networks.
Powell (1990) discussed the constraints of free market
and bureaucratic arrangements and elaborated on the
necessary conditions for the formation of organiza-
tional networks. His article is frequently cited, espe-
cially in conceptual network articles, to illustrate how
networks as organization forms differ from markets or
hierarchies. O’Toole (1997) called more attention to
networks in theory and praxis. He proposed practical
recommendations to help administrators prepare for
a networked environment. He also provided research
agendas for conducting conceptual work and empirical
studies. O’Toole’s article has received much attention
from researchers and has been cited as the baseline on
which researchers have reflected on the development of
social network research in public administration (e.g.,
Robinson 2006; Lecy et al. 2014).
Network effectiveness has taken a prominent posi-
tion since the early stage of network research in pub-
lic administration, as effectiveness is one of the key
reasons that public organizations consider forming or
joining networks with other organizations. Provan and
Milward (1995) evaluated the network effectiveness
of community mental health networks. Provan and
Milward (2001) proposed a theoretical framework to
evaluate network effectiveness at the individual organi-
zation/participant level, the network level, and the com-
munity level. Provan and Milward’s empirical work
and theoretical work on network effectiveness have
inspired many other researchers to conduct research on
the determinants of network effectiveness (Turrini et al.
2010) and to further expand on the theoretical frame-
work of network effectiveness (Kenis and Provan 2009).
Both Provan and Milward’s (1995; 2001) and O’Toole’s
(1997) work on networks and network effectiveness has
had far-reaching impact on network research in public
administration. Researchers have argued that Provan
and Milward’s (1995) research focuses on the collabo-
ration and cooperation among organizations within a
collaborative network, whereas O’Toole’s (1997) and
O’Toole and Meier’s (2004) research mainly examines
individual properties of organizations and public man-
agers’ networking activities (Akkerman, Torenvlied, and
Schalk 2012). Akkerman, Torenvlied, and Schalk sug-
gested the need to integrate the “collaborative network
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
perspective” with the “managerial networking perspec-
tive” to develop a more holistic approach to examining
network performance (2012, 655).
Network Governance
Another important theoretical work by Provan and
Kenis (2008) focused on the governance of net-
works. They described the structural properties
of three modes of network governance—“shared
governance,” “lead organization governance,” and
“network administration organization” (234–236).
Furthermore, they asserted that the adoption of a
particular form of network governance is contingent
on the trust distribution among network participants,
the number of participants, goal consensus, and the
nature of task. Provan et al. (2007) reviewed empiri-
cal studies on whole networks. Their detailed discus-
sion of network constructs has helped researchers
develop a good understanding of existing network
research and has provided future research direc-
tions. This is a systematic review article and is a little
different from Provan’s other research on network
effectiveness as shown in figure 3.
Resource Dependency
Along with the same cluster that includes Provan
and Milward’s (1995) and Provan and Kenis’s
(2008) research are Pfeffer and Salancik’s (1978)
study on resource dependency and Uzzi’s (1997) and
Granovetter’s (1985) research on structural embedded-
ness. Resource dependency and structural embedded-
ness are in the same cluster, as structural embeddedness
is often examined either as a type of resource (Park
and Rethemeyer 2012) or as a construct closely related
to access to resources (Akkerman, Torenvlied, and
Schalk 2012). Pfeffer and Salancik’s (1978) research
on resource dependency suggested that organiza-
tions operate in environments where organizations
need to manage their dependencies on resources from
other organizations and their relations with external
environments.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
Resource dependency theory has been cited to
examine the impact of resource scarcity, resource inter-
dependence, and uncertainty on the formation of net-
works (Akkerman, Torenvlied, and Schalk 2012) and
to explore the relationship between resource depend-
ency and network structures (Huang and Provan 2007;
Park and Rethemeyer 2012). Huang and Provan (2007)
examined the relationships among resource tangibility
and network structures. Within a network administra-
tive organization (NAO)-governed health and social
service network, control over tangible resources tend
to coexist with a centralized network structure, while
control over intangible resources such as information
and knowledge are more likely to be associated with
a decentralized network structure (Huang and Provan
2007). Park and Rethemeyer (2012) examined the
impact of resource dependency on network structures
in the context of an education policy network.
Different from Huang and Provan’s categorizing of
resources, Park and Rethemeyer proposed two types of
resources: “material-institutional resources” and “social
structure resources” (4). In addition to “material-insti-
tutional resources” such as funding and information,
they noted that structural positions can also help pursue
organizational interests. Not all studies, however, sup-
ported the arguments derived from resource depend-
ency theory. In a study of advocacy coalitions, Matti and
Sandström (2011) tested the advocacy coalition frame-
work and resource dependency theory to explain the for-
mation of advocacy coalitions. They found support for
the advocacy coalition framework and suggested that it
is not perceived influence but the perceived belief cor-
respondence, especially shared policy core beliefs, which
drive the formation of advocacy coalitions. Depending
on the type of resources and resource availability, the
relationship between resource dependency and network
structures can vary. Research remains needed to further
dissect the types of resources in a network and test the
relationships between resource dependency and network
structures.
Policy Networks
The study of policy networks is another important net-
work research area. Schneider et al.’s (2003) work was
plotted at the bottom left area in figure 3. Their study
examined policy networks and focused on the stake-
holder networks for the national estuary program.
This is one of the early network articles that examined
the formation of environmental policy networks, iden-
tified key network participants, analyzed the structural
aspects of network governance, and highlighted the
role of state and federal governments in nurturing the
formation and development of policy networks. When
discussing the governance of environmental resources,
they noted that decentralized network governance has
603
advantages in crossing jurisdictional, administrative,
and political boundaries. Their research on key policy
actors and institutions has had far-reaching impact on
policy network research (Robins, Bates, and Pattison
2011; Weible 2011).
Existing policy network research has examined the
formation and development of policy coalitions, the
structures of policy networks, and the involvement of
stakeholders and political actors in building “collabo-
rative” policy networks (Robins et al. 2011; Weible
2011). In a case study of governance of the Swan River
in Western Australia, Robins, Bates, and Pattison (2011)
reiterated the benefits of network-formed governance
structures in governing water resources and investigated
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
how decentralized network structures may facilitate
effective coordination of action (Schneider et al. 2003).
Weible (2011) investigated local elected officials and
administrators’ roles and motivations in collaborative
networks for watershed partnerships. Weible found that
local elected officials showed more concern about fed-
eral or state governmental regulations, property rights,
and government taxes, whereas local staff expressed
more concern about the ecosystem.
Social Network Analysis
The upper-left corner of figure 3 includes a clus-
ter of works by Freeman (1979), Scott (2000), and
Wasserman (1994). These works were co-cited by net-
work researchers to discuss network concepts, network
measures, and network analysis. Wasserman’s (1994)
and Scott’s (2000) books covered social network con-
cepts, the history and development of SNA, analysis
methods, and applications and have had far-reaching
impact on network research in public administration.
Freeman’s (1979) article about the concept of centrality
established the rules and standards for measuring the
centrality of nodes in a network. Freeman’s centrality
measures, including degree centrality, betweenness cen-
trality, and closeness centrality, have been most cited
by researchers when discussing network measures of
centrality. These works were often co-cited in network
research to illustrate their use of network measures
and analysis methods.
Mapping Network Constructs in Empirical Network
Scholarship
To depict network constructs and their relationships,
figure 4 maps key network constructs based on our
content analysis of the 76 network articles. The round
nodes indicate articles; the corresponding articles can
be found in the references section. According to this
framework, network structure and network configu-
rations are the most studied constructs in empirical
network research in public administration, followed
by network outcomes, network formation, network
604 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
Figure 4. Two-Mode Network of Key Network Constructs among 76 Articles
comparison, network governance, and network devel-
opment. These network constructs are not mutually
exclusive: An article may focus on more than one key
construct as reflected in figure 4. For instance, an arti-
cle can be linked with both network structure and net-
work outcomes, as it examines the impact of network
structures on network performance.
Network Formation
Out of the 76 articles, 10 focused on network forma-
tion. Scholars studied the formation of interlocal gov-
ernment collaboration in economic development and
service delivery (Lee, Feiock, and Lee 2012a; LeRoux
and Carr 2010), the formation of advocacy coalitions
(Matti and Sandström 2011), economic reform coali-
tions (Raab 2002), and alliance formation (Stephens,
Fulk, and Monge 2009). These articles identified the
presence of ties between nodes to measure the forma-
tion of networks. Network structural characteristics and
homophily theory were used to explain the formation
of networks (Lee, Feiock, and Lee 2012a, Lee, Lee, and
Feiock 2012b; Park and Rethemeyer 2012). According
to homophily theory, individuals and organizations with
similar attributes are more likely to establish interactions
with one another (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook
2001). City governments with similar social economic
attributes or same-county affiliation tend to establish
collaborations for economic development goals (Lee,
Feiock, and Lee 2012a). From the structural perspec-
tive, the reciprocity and transitivity effect can partially
explain the formation of collaboration ties (Lee, Lee,
and Feiock 2012b; Park and Rethemeyer 2012). Other
researchers have highlighted the role of informal rela-
tionships as well as the brokers’ role in nurturing inter-
local government agreements (Thurmaier and Wood
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
2002). Relatively few articles have explained the emer-
gent process by collecting longitudinal data and qualita-
tive data to understand network emergence processes.
Network Configurations
Nearly half the articles (36) applied SNA to identify the
key actors in a network or describe individual nodes’
position or roles in a network. For instance, a group of
researchers conducted network analysis to identify key
organizational actors in response to disasters (Kapucu
2006; Kapucu and Garayev 2012). Researchers used
network measures such as degree centrality, between-
ness centrality, and closeness centrality to examine indi-
vidual network participants’ influence, power, access
to resources, or leadership (Galaskiewicz et al. 2006;
Pappas and Wooldridge 2007; Vidovich and Currie
2012; Zeemering 2012). For instance, Galaskiewicz
et al. (2006) investigated the relationship between non-
profit organizations’ centrality and their growth. They
found that donative nonprofits, which rely heavily on
donations, grow faster if they have high network cen-
trality. Other than the centrality position, researchers
investigated the brokerage or brokering roles in build-
ing and nurturing interorganizational networks, influ-
encing policy-making, and facilitating disaster response
(Collins-Dogrul 2012; Heaney 2006; Marcum, Bevc,
and Butts 2012; Thurmaier and Wood 2002). By iden-
tifying the common linkages, researchers also examined
the formation of interlocking directorships between
different sectors (Ruigrok, Peck, and Keller 2006;
Vidovich and Currie 2012; Villadsen 2011).
Network Structures
More than half the articles (45) studied network struc-
tures. These articles applied network measures such as
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
density and centralization to depict the structural proper-
ties of a wide array of networks, including regional eco-
nomic development networks (Feiock et al. 2010; Lee,
Lee, and Feiock 2012b), interlocal service collaboration
networks (LeRoux and Carr 2010), community men-
tal health networks (Milward et al. 2010; Provan and
Huang 2012), cross-sector emergency management net-
works (Kapucu 2006), Swiss telecommunications regu-
latory networks (Fischer et al. 2012) and Climate Policy
Coalitions (Ingold 2011). Researchers also described
overall interaction patterns of networks to understand
the collaboration patterns on innovation (Caloffi and
Mariani 2011) and policy diffusion processes (Cao and
Prakash 2011). Relatively few articles focused on the
subgroups or substructures of networks through clique
analysis, structural equivalence analysis, or cluster analy-
sis. Kapucu et al. (2009, 2010) conducted clique analysis
to identify the subset of organizations with close collab-
oration with one another within disaster response net-
works. Ansell, Reckhow, and Kelly (2009) applied clique
analysis to identify the key stakeholder groups in the con-
text of urban school reform. Weible (2011) conducted
cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling analysis to
divide the diverse stakeholders of environmental man-
agement into different groups based on their beliefs.
Similarly, Shrestha (2012) conducted cluster analysis to
classify communities into different groups according to
the “similarity of network connections” (15).
Structural equivalence is another approach to
examine the substructures of networks, which exam-
ines “the direct connections of an actor to others in
the network” (Borgatti, Everett, and Johnson 2013,
207). For undirected data, two nodes are structur-
ally equivalent when they are connected with the
same actors. For directed data, two nodes are struc-
turally equivalent when they send ties to the same
actors and receive ties from the same actors in the
network (Borgatti, Everett, and Johnson 2013).
Through blockmodeling using CONCOR, research-
ers have identified key stakeholder groups and advo-
cacy coalitions, measured trade competition, and
evaluated the impact of similar network positions
on the adoption of a new program and cooperative
behavior (e.g., Cao and Prakash 2011; Ingold 2011;
Ingold and Varone 2012; Jokisaari and Vuori 2010;
Lambright et al. 2010; Robins et al. 2011).
Network Comparison and Development
Network comparison and development were studied in
17 articles to compare the network structural proper-
ties or network performance and to examine the evolu-
tion of networks. A few researchers compared networks
to evaluate the implementation of programs (Melker
and Wu 2009; Poole 2008; Varda 2011). Melker and
Wu (2009) examined the structural differences (size,
605
density, and centralization) of scientific collabora-
tion networks among states that participated in the
National Science Foundation Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) and those
that did not. Poole (2008) examined changes in col-
laboration networks after the implementation of the
Texas Community Awareness and Relocation Services
Project. Similarly, Varda (2011) compared commu-
nity networks before and after the implementation of
the Federal National Service Program to evaluate the
impact of a federal program on community capital.
Scholars have compared various types of networks
to understand their structures. Chen and Krauskopf
(2012) compared the structures of formal and infor-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
mal intraorganizational networks before and after
an organizational merger. Choi and Brower (2006)
examined emergency managers “cognitive accuracy”
about emergency networks by comparing formal, per-
ceived, and actual networks. Kapucu and Demiroz
(2011) made a comparison between planned networks
and actual networks in response to the September 11
attacks and Hurricane Katrina.
Among these studies, a small number of articles
collected longitudinal network data and examined
the changes and development of networks. Isett
and Provan (2005), Milward et al. (2010), Provan,
Isett, and Milward (2004), and Provan and Huang
(2012) have conducted longitudinal studies of men-
tal health service networks to examine the evolution,
governance structure changes, and effects of struc-
tural embeddedness on trustworthiness, reputation,
and influence over time. Ingold (2011) analyzed the
formation and development of Swiss Climate Policy
Coalitions. Park and Rethemeyer (2012) examined
the impacts of decreased resource availability on net-
work structures in the context of education policy
networks. Andrew (2009) analyzed the patterns of
contractual arrangements in law enforcement among
66 local governments in the Orlando-Kissimmee met-
ropolitan area over five time periods from 1986 to
2003. Existing empirical network research has not
paid much attention to studying the emergent pro-
cesses of network formation and development. To
understand the dynamic processes of network forma-
tion and development, more longitudinal research is
needed.
Network Outcomes
Network outcomes were studied in 15 articles. A few
articles focused on how network positions and struc-
tures impact individuals’ perceptions about victimiza-
tion (Lamertz and Aquino, 2004), controllability of
change (Vardaman et al. 2012), organizational com-
mitment (Lee and Kim 2011), involvement in board
activities (Ruigrok, Peck, and Keller 2006), satisfaction
606 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
about colleges (Akkerman, Torenvlied, and Schalk
2012; Schalk, Torenvlied, and Allen 2010), and e-gov-
ernment effectiveness (Lee 2011). Researchers have
also examined how organizational involvement in net-
works influences their participation in neighborhood
programs (Dekker et al. 2010), access to resources
(Galaskiewicz et al. 2006), adoption of employment
service program (Jokisaari and Vuori 2010), and
awareness of evidence-based practice (Provan et al.
2013). At the community level, Shrestha (2012) exam-
ined the relationship between the number of external
partners and a community’s success in raising funds.
Furthermore, Shrestha (2012) examined the impact of
degree centrality, indirect ties, and subgroup cohesion
on a community’s success in fund-raising. Shea (2011)
described the central roles played by nonprofit organi-
zations serving as the intermediaries between federal
government programs and local communities. Nowell
(2010) argued that “problem frame alignment” and
“frame discordance” can influence community col-
laboratives’ effectiveness in fostering community
change. Three major theories were used to develop the
relationships among network position and network
structures and various levels of network outcomes,
including social capital theory (Burt, 2001; Coleman
1990; Granovetter 1985; Lin 2001), institutional the-
ory (Ostrom 2005), and resource dependency theory
(Pfeffer and Salancik 1978).
Although 15 articles examined network outcomes
at different levels, only few conducted comprehensive
assessment of network effectiveness at the interorgani-
zational network level. Provan and Milward (2001),
in their conceptual work on network effectiveness,
suggested that network effectiveness has received lit-
tle attention. More than a decade later, network effec-
tiveness of whole networks continues to receive little
attention (Robins, Bates, and Pattison 2011). Isett
and Provan (2005) studied the evolution of a mental
health services network and identified the increased
trust manifested in the multiplexity of interorgani-
zational relationships. Provan, Huang, and Milward
(2009) analyzed the effects of structural embedded-
ness on trustworthiness, reputation, and influence,
as well as the evolution of relationships among these
variables over time. Sandström and Carlsson (2008)
studied the positive relationship between network
closure (measured by density and network centrali-
zation) and structural holes (measured by diversity
of actors) and network performance. Network per-
formance was measured by the efficiency in reach-
ing consensus in building arenas and the presence of
innovative concepts. Network-related variables have
been used as independent variables to explain network
outcomes at individual, group, or organizational levels.
Relatively few articles have examined the relationships
among networks and community-level outcomes.
Furthermore, network-level effectiveness has received
limited attention in existing literature.
Network Governance
Out of 76 articles, eight articles examined the coor-
dination mechanisms and processes for the network
form of governance. According to Provan and Kenis’s
(2008) work on “modes of network governance,” the
selection of a particular form of network governance
depends on the trust distribution among network par-
ticipants, the number of participants, goal consensus,
and the nature of task. Milward et al. (2010) examined
the evolution of two community mental health net-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
works and argued that the stability of network admin-
istrative organization-governed network strengthened
network performance. Robins, Bates, and Pattison
(2011) extended the work of Provan and Kenis (2008)
by discussing the features of network structures that
may facilitate coordination of action. They argued that
relational embeddedness and structural embedded-
ness are crucial for effective network governance. In
addition, they noted the importance of shared goals
and goal specificity for effective network governance.
In a study of the governance of emergency response,
Marcum, Bevc, and Butts (2012) suggested that in
the context of disaster response, effective network
governance often requires a more flexible and sparse
network structure that includes “indirect, or a combi-
nation of direct and brokered communication” (536).
Bunger (2012) highlighted trust building among non-
profit organizations, especially when nonprofit leaders
need to coordinate service provisions with competing
nonprofit organizations. Although existing network
research touched on the importance of network struc-
tural properties, trust, and goal consistency and speci-
ficity, research on the modes of network governance
remains limited. The relationships among network
structures and network governance, and network per-
formance, are multifaceted.
Although the network form differs from the tradi-
tional bureaucratic approach to government, the role
of managers and governments in governing networks
remains crucial. Rabb (2002) identified the key policy
actors in Germany during the economic reform between
1990 and 1994. Weir, Rongerude, and Ansell (2009) sug-
gested that vertical power is important for transporta-
tion reform in Los Angeles and Chicago. Connections
matter more in a more centralized network in Chicago.
Weible (2011) highlighted the importance of local
elected officials’ roles in collaborative networks for
watershed partnerships. Waterhouse and Keast (2012)
noted that government plays important roles in all three
levels of networks—strategic, operational, and service
delivery. Besides highlighting the role of government
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
in cross-sector collaboration, public managers’ new
dimensions of leadership and capacities deserve more
exploration.
Compared with traditional bureaucratic structures,
cross-sector environments present different opportuni-
ties and challenges to public managers (Agranoff 2007;
Agranoff and McGuire 2001; Silvia and McGuire 2010).
The decision-making process in networks involves mul-
tiple organizational actors and differs from the top-
down approach (Agranoff 2007). As networks continue
to find their way to a broader array of management
domains and policy areas, the issue of how to govern
networks becomes more prominent and deserves much
more attention. Future research needs to explore and
empirically test the modes of network governance, the
relationships between leadership, network structures,
network governance, and network effectiveness.
Conclusion
Over the past few decades, network studies have grown
rapidly in social sciences such as sociology, organiza-
tional studies, and political science (Borgatti, Brass,
and Halgin 2014). In public administration, the past
15 years have experienced a growing interest in net-
work research and applications. This study contrib-
utes to existing network research in multiple respects.
Despite the previous publication of a number of review
articles (e.g., Isett et al. 2011; Lecy et al. 2014), few arti-
cles have systematically examined empirical network
research in public administration. Provan et al.’s (2007)
article reviewed empirical whole network research, yet
the majority of the network literature came from other
disciplines, such as sociology and management. Hwang
and Moon (2009) conducted bibliometric analysis to
identify most cited authors and works in network liter-
ature; however, their research did not focus on the key
network concepts or theoretical foundations of empiri-
cal network research. This study is an early attempt to
reflect on empirical network research focusing on the
public administration context and to further exam-
ine the intellectual foundations of network scholar-
ship. Findings from this study can contribute to theory
building in network research for public administration.
Furthermore, bibliometric analysis has its strengths in
revealing the interrelations of scholarly works and trac-
ing the development of certain topics or of a field.
An examination of theoretical foundations helped
identify the major theories applied in current empirical
network studies and guided our proposal of areas of
research needed to advance theory building in the field.
Through the bibliometric analysis, we identified works
that have influenced the development of empirical net-
work research in public administration. The majority
of empirical network research in public administration
is built primarily on theories of social capital, social
607
embeddedness, and resource dependency. A number of
empirical network studies have examined the relational
aspects of social capital—the presence of bridging or
bonding social capital and their impact on individuals,
organizations, and communities. In contrast, research
examining structural embeddedness and its effects
on individual network participants and on network
effectiveness is limited. Furthermore, the relationship
between resource dependency and network structures
may vary, contingent upon resource types and resource
availability. Research remains needed to dissect the
types of resources in a network and test the relationships
between resource dependency and network structures.
Aware of the critique about a lack of network theory
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
construction, network researchers are devoted to devel-
oping a more coherent “theory of networks and network
theory,” with the former focusing on the antecedents of
networks and the latter focusing on the outcomes or
consequences of networks (Borgatti and Lopez-Kidwell
2011, 2; Borgatti et al. 2014; Keast 2014). The content
analysis of this study suggests that much more work
needs to be done to build a theory of networks and net-
work theory in public administration. Research remains
limited that examines the emergent process of network
formation and development, which will be fundamental
for developing a theory of networks to explain and pre-
dict why networks form and evolve. Network configu-
rations and network structure have received increasing
attention in existing network research in public admin-
istration. Researchers have applied SNA to visualize the
interactions between actors, to identify the key players,
and to display the structural properties of networks. In
contrast, there are few longitudinal studies of network
formation and development.
More research is needed to examine network effec-
tiveness and network governance. Existing network
outcome research has not paid much attention to the
assessment of network effectiveness at the network
level, despite the fact that Provan and Milward (2001)
had noted this research gap more than a decade ago.
Another network construct that needs more attention is
network governance. More research needs to extend or
go beyond Provan and Kenis’s (2008) research on the
modes of network governance to explore the effective
coordination mechanisms and processes for achieving
collaborative outcomes. Research is needed to investi-
gate the intertwined relationships between governance
modes, network type, network structure, and network
effectiveness. The role of public managers in a net-
worked environment also deserves more attention, as
managers face a unique set of challenges and opportu-
nities working in interorganizational networks.
This study has some limitations. Although we con-
ducted a comprehensive search of empirical network
research on public administration, the selected empir-
ical network research was represented by studies
608 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
Appendix: List of 39 Public Administration Journals (Including the Number of SNA Articles)
Administration & Society (3)
The American Review of Public Administration (6)
Australian Journal of Public Administration (0)
Canadian Public Administration (0)
Evaluation Review (1)
Financial Accountability and Management (0)
Human Relations (3)
International Journal of Public Administration (2)
International Review of Administrative Sciences (1)
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy (0)
Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law (0)
Journal of Management Studies (2)
Journal of Policy Analysis &Management (3)
Journal of Public Administration Research &Theory (15)
Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial
Management / Public Budgeting and Financial Management (0)
Journal of Public Policy (1)
Journal of Urban Affairs (4)
Municipal Finance Journal (0)
National Tax Journal (0)
Nonprofit Management & Leadership (4)
Note: Network scholars have published in a diverse range of journals as listed above. We need to note that 18 of the 39 journals have no
network articles using social network analysis.
using SNA and limited to 76 peer-reviewed journal
articles published from January 1997 to January
2013. It is beyond the scope of this study to exhaust
all empirical network literature in public administra-
tion. Future works may include nonpublic adminis-
tration journals that publish network research related
to public organizational contexts. Furthermore, this
study may raise more questions than it has addressed.
This study invites network scholars to evaluate the
key theoretical constructs and theories in existing net-
work research and to contribute to theory building
for the field.
References
Agranoff, Robert. 2007. Managing within networks: Adding value to public
organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.
Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2001. Big questions in public net-
work management research. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 11:295–396.
Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2003. Collaborative public manage-
ment: New strategies for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Ahuja, Gautam 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innova-
tion: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly 45:425–455.
Akkerman, Agnes, René Torenvlied, and Jelmer Schalk. 2012. Two-level effects
of interorganizational network collaboration on graduate satisfaction:
A comparison of five intercollege networks in Dutch higher education.
The American Review of Public Administration 42:654–677. [2]
Alter, Catherine, and Jerald Hage. 1993. Organizations working together.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Andrés, Ana. 2009. Measuring academic research: How to undertake a biblio-
metric analysis. Cambridge, UK: Chandos Publishing.
Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly (4)
Organization Studies (2)
Policy Sciences (0)
Policy Studies Journal (10)
Policy Studies Review /Review of Policy Research (2)
Political Psychology (0)
Political Science Quarterly (0)
Public Administration & Development (0)
Public Administration: An International Quarterly (0)
Public Administration Quarterly (0)
Public Administration Review (7)
Public Budgeting and Finance (0)
Public Finance Quarterly / Public Finance Review (0)
Public Performance and Management Review (1)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
Publius (0)
Review of Public Personnel Administration (0)
Social Science Quarterly (1)
State & Local Government Review (0)
Urban Affairs Review (4)
Andrew, Simon A. 2009. Regional integration through contracting networks:
An empirical analysis of Institutional Collection Action framework. Urban
Affairs Review 44:378–402. [4]
Ansell, Chris, Sarah Reckhow, and Andrew Kelly. 2009. How to reform a
reform coalition: Outreach, agenda expansion, and brokerage in Urban
School Reform. Policy Studies Journal 37:717–43. [1]
Axelrod, Robert M. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. Cambridge, MA:
Basic Books.
Bardach, Eugene. 1998. Getting agencies to work together: The practice
and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Bernick, Ethan, and Skip Krueger. 2010. An assessment of journal quality in Public
Administration. International Journal of Public Administration 33:98–106.
Berry, Frances S., Ralph S. Brower, Sang Ok Choi, Wendy Xinfang, HeeSoun Jang,
Myungjung Kwon, and Jessica Word. 2004. Three traditions of network
research: What the public management research agenda can learn from
other research communities. Public Administration Review 64:539–52.
Bonacich, Phillip. 1987. Power and centrality: A family of measures. American
Journal of Sociology 92:1170–1182.
Borgatti, Stephen P. 1997. Multidimensional scaling. http://www.analytictech.
com/borgatti/mds.htm (accessed January 15, 2014).
Borgatti, Stephen P., Daniel J. Brass, and Daniel S. Halgin. 2014. Social net-
work research: Confusions, criticisms, and controversies. In Research
in the sociology of organizations, vol. 40, ed. Daniel J. Brass, Giuseppe
Labianca, Ajay Mehra, Daniel S. Halgin, and Stephen P. Borgatti, 1–29.
Bradford, UK: Emerald Publishing.
Borgatti, Stephen P., Martin G. Everett, and Linton C. Freeman. 2002.
UCINET 6 for Windows. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Borgatti, Stephen P., Martin G. Everett, and Jeffrey C. Johnson. 2013.
Analyzing social networks. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Borgatti, Stephen P, and Virginie Lopez-Kidwell. 2011. Network theory. In The
SAGE handbook of social network analysis, ed. John Scott and Peter J.
Carrington, 40–54. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bowen, William M., and Chieh-Chen Bowen. 2008. Content analysis. In
Handbook of research methods in public administration, 2nd ed, ed.
Gerald J. Miller and Kaifeng Yang, 689–704. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
Brass, Daniel J., Joseph Galaskiewicz, Henrich R. Greve, and Wenpin Tsai.
2004. Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspec-
tive. Academy of management journal 47:795–817.
Bunger, Alicia C. 2012. Administrative coordination in nonprofit human ser-
vice delivery networks: The role of competition and trust. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly 42:1155–75. [5]
Burt, Ronald S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition.
Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, Ronald S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative
Science Quarterly 42:339–65.
Burt, Ronald S. 2001. Structural holes versus network closure as social capital.
In Social capital: Theory and research, ed. Nan Lin, Karen S. Cook, and
Ronald S. Burt, 31–56. New York, NY: Aldine.
Burt, Ronald S. 2005. Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Carpenter, Mason A., Mingxiang Li, and Han Jiang. 2012. A systematic review
of methodological issues and choices. Journal of Management 38:1328–61.
Chabowski, Brian R., Jeannette A. Mena, and Tracy L. Gonzalez-Padron. 2011.
The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: A basis
for future research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39:55–70.
Caloffi, Annalisa, and Marco Mariani. 2011. Shaping regional policy
responses: The design of innovation poles. Policy Studies 32:413–28. [6]
Cao, Xun, and Aseem Prakash. 2011. Growing exports by signaling product qual-
ity: Trade competition and the cross-national diffusion of ISO 9000 quality
standards. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30:111–35. [7]
Chen, Bin, and James Krauskopf. 2012. Integrated or disconnected?
Examining formal and informal networks in a merged nonprofit organiza-
tion. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 23:325–45.
Choi, Sang Ok, and Ralph S. Brower. 2006. When practice matters more than
government plans: A network analysis of local emergency management.
Administration and Society 37:651–78. [9]
Coleman, James S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital.
American Journal of Sociology 94:S95–S120.
Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge MA: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Collins-Dogrul, Julie. 2012. Tertius Iungens brokerage and transnational inter-
sectoral cooperation. Organization Studies 33:989–1014. [11]
Dekker, Karien, Beate Völker, Herman Lelieveldt, and Rene Torenvlied. 2010.
Civic engagement in urban neighborhoods: Does the network of civic
organizations influence participation in neighborhood projects? Journal of
Urban Affairs 3:609–32. [13]
DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited:
Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational
fields. American Sociological Review 48:147–60.
Enemark, Daniel, Mathew D. McCubbins, and Nicholas Weller. 2012.
Knowledge and networks: An experimental test of how network knowl-
edge affects coordination. Social Networks. http://polisci2.ucsd.edu/dene-
mark/papers/Enemark_et_al_SocialNetworks.pdf (accessed July 13, 2014).
Feiock, Richard C., ed. 2004. Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition,
and cooperation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Feiock, Richard C. 2007. Rational choice and regional governance. Journal of
Urban Affairs 29:47–63.
Feiock, Richard C., In Won Lee, Hyung Jun Park, and Keon-Hyung Lee.
2010. Collaboration networks among local elected officials: Information,
commitment, and risk aversion. Urban Affairs Review 46:241–62. [14]
Fernandez, Roberto M., and Roger Gould. 1994. A dilemma of state power:
Brokerage and influence in the national health policy domain. American
Journal of Sociology 99:1455–91.
Fischer, Manuel, Karin Ingold, Pascal Sciarini, and Frédéric Varone. 2012.
Impacts of market liberalization on regulatory network: A longitudinal
analysis of the Swiss Telecommunications Sector. Policy Studies Journal
40:435–57. [16]
Forrester, John P., and Sheilah S. Watson .1994. An assessment of public
administration journals. Public Administration Review 54:474–82.
Freeman, Linton C. 1979. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarifica-
tion. Social Networks 1:215–39.
609
Fukuyama, Francis. 1995. Trust: Social virtues and the creation of prosperity.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Galaskiewicz, Joseph, Wolfgang Bielefeld, and Myron Dowell. 2006. Networks
and organizational growth: A study of community based nonprofits.
Administrative Science Quarterly 51:337–80. [17]
Gelles, Erna, Meg Merrick, Sean Derrickson, Felesia Otis, Oscar Sweeten‐
Lopez, and Jamaal Tripp Folsom. 2009. Building stronger weak ties
among a diverse pool of emergent nonprofit leaders of color. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership 19:523–48. [18]
Georgiou, Ion. 2014. Seeing the forest for the trees: An atlas of the politics–
administration dichotomy. Public Administration Review 74:156–75.
Gould, Roger V., and Roberto M. Fernandez. 1989. Structures of mediation:
A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological
Methodology 19:89–126.
Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of
Sociology 6:1360–80.
Granovetter, Mark S. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The prob-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
lem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91:481–510.
Gulati, Ranjay. 1995. Does family breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for
contractual choices in alliances. Academy of Management Journal 38:85–112.
Hanneman, Robert A. and Mark Riddle. 2005. Introduction to social network
methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside (published in
digital form at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/).
Hansen, Morten T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties
in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science
Quarterly 44:82–111.
Heaney, Michael T. 2006. Brokering health policy: Coalitions, parties, and interest
group influence. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 31:887–944. [20]
Heclo, Hugh A. 1978. Issue networks and the executive establishment. In The
New American Political System, ed. Anthony King, 87–124. Washington,
DC: AEI.
Henry, Adam Douglas, Mark Lubell, and Michael McCoy. 2011. Belief sys-
tems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: The case of
California Regional Planning. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 21:419–44. [21]
Huang, Kun, and Keith G. Provan. 2007. Resource tangibility and patterns
of interaction in a publicly funded Health and Human Services Network.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17:435–54. [22]
Human, Sherrie E., and Provan, Keith G. 2000. Legitimacy building in the evo-
lution of small-firm multilateral networks: A comparative study of success
and demise. Administrative Science Quarterly 45:327–65.
Hwang, Sungsoo, and Il-Chul Moon. 2009. Are we treating networks seri-
ously? The growth of network research in public administration and pub-
lic policy. Connections 29:4–17.
Ingold, Karin. 2011. Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions,
power, and brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy. Policy Studies Journal
39:435–59. [23]
Ingold, Karin, and Frédéric Varone. 2012. Treating policy brokers seriously:
Evidence from the Climate Policy. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 22:319–46. [24]
Isett, Kimberley R., Ines A. Mergel, Kelly LeRoux, Pamela A. Mischen, and R.
Karl Rethemeyer. 2011. Networks in Public Administration scholarship:
Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 21 (s1):i157–73.
Isett, Kimberley Roussin, and Keith G. Provan. 2005. The evolution of dyadic
interorganizational relationships in a network of publicly funded non-
profit agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
15:149–65. [25]
Jasny, Lorien. 2012. Baseline models for two-mode social network data. Policy
Studies Journal 40:458–91. [26]
Jones, Candace, William S. Hesterly, and Stephen P. Borgatti. 1997. A general
theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mecha-
nisms. Academy of Management Review 22:911–45.
Jokisaari, Markku, and Jukka Vuori. 2010. The role of reference groups and
network position in the timing of employment service adoption. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 20:137–56. [27]
610 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
Kapucu, Naim. 2006. Interagency communication networks during emer-
gencies boundary spanners in multiagency coordination. The American
Review of Public Administration 36:207–225. [29]
Kapucu, Naim, Tolga Arslan, and Matthew Lloyd Collins. 2010. Examining
intergovernmental and interorganizational response to catastrophic dis-
asters toward a network-centered approach. Administration & Society
42:222–47. [31]
Kapucu, Naim, Maria-Elena Augustin, and Vener Garayev. 2009. Interstate
partnerships in emergency management: Emergency management assis-
tance compact in response to catastrophic disasters. Public Administration
Review 69:297–313. [30]
Kapucu, Naim, and Fatih Demiroz. 2011. Measuring performance for col-
laborative public management using network analysis methods and tools.
Public Performance and Management Review 34:551–81. [32]
Kapucu, Naim, and Vener Garayev. 2012. Designing, managing, and sustain-
ing functionally collaborative emergency management networks. The
American Review of Public Administration 43:312–30. [33]
Kapucu, Naim, Qian Hu, and Sana Khosa. 2014. Networks and social
network analysis in public organizational context: Examining net-
work research in public administration. Administration & Society.
DOI:10.1177/0095399714555752
Keast, Robyn. 2014. Network theory tracks and trajectories: Where from,
where to? In Network theory in the public sector: Building new theoreti-
cal frameworks, ed. Robyn Keast, Myrna Mandell, and Robert Agranoff,
15–30. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kenis, Patrick, and Keith G. Provan. 2009. Towards an exogenous theory of
public network performance. Public Administration 87:440–56.
Kilduff, Martin, and Wenpin Tsai. 2003. Social Networks and Organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Knoke, David. 1990. Political networks: The structural perspective. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Knoke, David, and James H. Kuklinski. 1982. Network analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Koliba, Christopher J., Jack W. Meek, and Asim Zia. 2010. Governance networks
in public administration and public policy. New York, NY: CRC Press.
Kraatz, Matthew S. 1998. Learning by Association? Interorganizational net-
works and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management
Journal 41:621–43.
Krackhardt, David. 1990. Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cog-
nition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly
35:342–69.
Kruskal, Joseph B., and Myron Wish 1978. Multidimensional scaling.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Lambright, Kristina T., Pamela A. Mischen, and Craig B. Laramee. 2010. Building
trust in public and nonprofit networks: Personal, dyadic, and third-party
influences. The American Review of Public Administration 40:64–82. [34]
Lamertz, Kai, and Karl Aquino. 2004. Social power, social status and percep-
tual similarity of workplace victimization: A social network analysis of
stratification. Human Relations 57:795–822. [35]
Laumann, Edward O., and David Knoke. 1987. The organizational state:
Social choice in national policy domains. Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Lecy, Jesse D., Ines A. Mergel, and Hans Peter Schmitz. 2014. Networks in
Public Administration: Current scholarship in review. Public Management
Review 16:643–65.
Lee, Jooho. 2011. Exploring the role of knowledge networks in perceived
e-governance: A comparative case study of two local governments in
Korea. American Review of Public Administration 43:89–108. DOI:
10.1177/0275074011429716
Lee, In‐Won, Richard C. Feiock, and Youngmi Lee. 2012a. Competitors and
cooperators: A micro-level analysis of regional economic development col-
laboration networks. Public Administration Review 72:253–62.
Lee, Jooho, and Soonhee Kim. 2011. Exploring the role of social networks
in affective organizational commitment: Network centrality, strength of
ties, and structural holes. The American Review of Public Administration
41:205–23. [39]
Lee, Youngmi, In Won Lee, and Richard C. Feiock. 2012b.
Interorganizational collaboration networks in economic development
policy: An exponential Random Graph Model analysis. Policy Studies
Journal 40:547–73. [37]
LeRoux, Kelly, and Jered B. Carr. 2010. Prospects for centralizing services in
an urban county: Evidence from eight self-organized networks of local
public services. Journal of Urban Affairs 32:449–70. [41]
Lin, Nan. 1999. Building a network theory of social capital. Connections
22:28–51.
Lin, Nan, Karen S. Cook, and Ronald S. Burt, eds. 2001. Social capital: Theory
and research. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Lubell, Mark, Mark Schneider, John T. Scholz, and Mihriye Mete. 2002.
Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions.
American Journal of Political Science 46:148–163.
Marcum, Christopher Steven, Christine A. Bevc, and Carter T. Butts. 2012.
Mechanisms of control in emergent interorganizational networks. Policy
Studies Journal 40:516–46. [42]
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
Marsden, Peter V. 1990. Network data and measurement. Annual Review of
Sociology 16:435–63.
Marsden, Peter V. 2005. Recent developments in network measurement. In
Models and methods in social network analysis, ed. Peter J. Carrington,
John Scott, and Stanley Wasserman, 8–30. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Matti, Simon, and Annica Sandström. 2011. The rationale determining advo-
cacy coalitions: Examining coordination networks and corresponding
beliefs. Policy Studies Journal 39:385–410. [43]
McCain, Katherine W. 1990. Mapping scholars in intellectual space: A tech-
nical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
41:433–43.
McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a
feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27:
415–444.
Meier, Kenneth J., and Laurence J. O’Toole. 2003. Public management and
educational performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public
Administration Review 63: 689–99.
Milward, H. Brinton, and Keith G. Provan. 1998. Principles for controlling
agents: The political economy of network structure. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 8:203–22.
Milward, H. Brinton, Keith G. Provan, Amy Fish, Kimberley R. Isett, and
Kun Huang. 2010. Governance and collaboration: An evolutionary study
of two mental health networks. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 20(Suppl 1):i125–41. [45]
Nowell, Branda. 2010. Out of sync and unaware? Exploring the effects of
problem frame alignment and discordance in community collaboratives.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20:91–116. [48]
Oliver, Christine. 1990. Determinants of Interorganizational relationships:
Integration and future directions. The Academy of Management Review
15:241–65.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1998. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of
collective action. American Political Science Review 92:1–22.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions
for collective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
O’Toole, Laurence J. 1997. Treating networks seriously: Practical and
research-based agendas in Public Administration. Public Administration
Review 57:45–52.
O’Toole, Laurence J., and Kenneth J. Meier. 2004. Public management in inter-
governmental networks: Matching structural networks and managerial net-
working. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14: 469–94.
Pappas, James M., and Bill Wooldridge. 2007. Middle managers’ divergent
strategic activity: An investigation of multiple measures of network cen-
trality. Journal of Management Studies 44:323–41. [50]
Park, Hyun Hee, and R. Karl Rethemeyer. 2012. The politics of connections:
Assessing the determinants of social structure in policy networks. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory 2009: 1–6. [51]
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of
organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Poole, Dennis L. 2008. Organizational networks of collaboration for commu-
nity‐based living. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 18:275–93. [53]
Powell, Walter W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of
organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior 12:295–336.
Powell, Walter. W., Kenneth W. Koput, and Laurel Smith-Doerr. 1996.
Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks
of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41:116–45.
Provan, Keith G., Jonathan E. Beagles, Liesbeth Mercken, and Scott
J. Leischow. 2013. Awareness of evidence-based practices by organiza-
tions in a publicly funded smoking cessation network. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 23:133–53.
Provan, Keith G., Amy Fish, and Joerg Sydow. 2007. Interorganizational net-
works at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole
networks. Journal of Management 33:479–516.
Provan, Keith G., and Kun Huang. 2012. Resource tangibility and the evo-
lution of a publicly funded health and human services network. Public
Administration Review 72: 366–75. [54]
Provan, Keith G., Kun Huang, and H. Brinton Milward. 2009. The evolu-
tion of structural embeddedness and organizational social outcomes in a
centrally governed health and human services network. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 19:873–93. [55]
Provan, Keith G., Kimberley R. Isett, and H. Brinton Milward. 2004.
Cooperation and compromise: A network response to conflicting institu-
tional pressures in community mental health. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly 33:489–514. [56]
Provan, Keith G., and Patrick Kenis. 2008. Modes of network governance:
Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 18:229–52.
Provan, Keith G., and Robin H. Lemaire. 2012. Core concepts and key ideas
for understanding public sector organizational networks: Using research to
inform scholarship and practice. Public Administration Review 72:638–48.
Provan, Keith G., and H. Brinton Milward. 1995. A preliminary theory of inter-
organizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four com-
munity mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 40:1–33.
Provan, Keith G., and H. Brinton Milward. 2001. Do networks really work?
A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public
Administration Review 61:414–23.
Provan, Keith G., and Juliann. G. Sebastian. 1998. Networks within networks:
Service link overlap, organizational cliques, and network effectiveness.
Academy of Management Journal 41:453–63.
Putnam, Robert D. 1995. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital.
Journal of Democracy, 6:65–78.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Putnam, Robert D, ed. 2002. Democracies in flux: The evolution of social
capital in contemporary society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Raab, Jörg. 2002. Where do policy networks come from? Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 12:581–622. [58]
Robins, Garry. 2015. Doing social network research: Network-based research
design for social scientists. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Robins, Garry, Lorraine Bates, and Philippa Pattison. 2011. Network govern-
ance and environmental management: Conflict and cooperation. Public
Administration 89:1293–313. [60]
Robins, Garry, Pip Pattison, Yuval Kalish, and Dean Lusher. 2007. An
Introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social net-
works. Social Networks 29:173–91.
Robinson, Scott E. 2006. A decade of treating networks seriously. Policy
Studies Journal 34:589–98.
Ruigrok, Winfried, Simon I. Peck, and Hansueli Keller. 2006. Board character-
istics and involvement in strategic decision making: Evidence from Swiss
companies. Journal of Management Studies 43:1201–26. [61]
Sabatier, Paul A. and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, eds. 1993. Policy change and
learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
611
Sandström, Annica, and Lars Carlsson. 2008. The performance of policy net-
works: The relation between network structure and network performance.
Policy Studies Journal 36:497–524. [62]
Schalk, Jelmer, René Torenvlied, and Jim Allen. 2010. Network embedded-
ness and organizational performance. The strength of strong ties in Dutch
higher education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
20:629–53. [63]
Schneider, Mark, John Scholz, Mark Lubell, Denisa Mindruta, and
Matthew Edwardsen. 2003. Building consensual institutions: Networks and the
National Estuary Program. American Journal of Political Science 47:143–58.
Scott, John. 2000. Social network analysis: A handbook, 2nd ed. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage Publications.
Scott, John. 2013. Social network analysis: A handbook, 3rd ed. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage Publications.
Shea, Jennifer. 2011. Taking nonprofit intermediaries seriously: A middle-range the-
ory for implementation research. Public Administration Review 71:57–66. [64]
Shrestha, Manoj K. 2012. Self-organizing network capital and the success of
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022
collaborative public programs. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 23:307–29. [66]
Silvia, Chris, and Michael McGuire. 2010. Leading public sector networks: An
empirical examination of integrative leadership behaviors. The Leadership
Quarterly 21:264–77.
Snijders, Tom A. B. 2002. Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation of exponen-
tial random graph models. Journal of Social Structure 3:1–40.
Snijders, Tom A. B., Philippa E. Pattison, Garry L. Robins, and Mark
S. Handcock. 2006. New specifications for exponential random graph
models. Sociological Methodology 36:99–153.
Stephens, Kimberlie J., Janet Fulk, and Peter R. Monge. 2009. Constrained
choices in alliance formations: Cupids and organizational marriages.
Human Relations 62:501–36. [67]
Turrini, Alex, Daniela Cristofoli, Francesca Frosini, and Greta Nasi. 2010.
Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness. Public
Administration 88:528–50.
Thurmaier, Kurt, and Curtis Wood. 2002. Interlocal agreements as overlap-
ping social networks: Picket–fence regionalism in Metropolitan Kansas
City. Public Administration Review 62:585–98. [68]
Uzzi, Brian. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the
economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American
Sociological Review 61:674–89.
Uzzi, Brian. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks:
The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly
42:35–67.
Valente, Thomas W. 2010. Social networks and health: models, methods, and
applications. New York NY: Oxford University Press.
Varda, Danielle M. 2011. A network perspective on state-society synergy to
increase community-level social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly 40:896–923. [69]
Vardaman, James M., John M. Amis, Benedict P. Dyson, Paul M. Wright, and
Robert Van de Graaff Randolph. 2012. Interpreting change as control-
lable: The role of network centrality and self-efficacy. Human Relations
65:835–59. [70]
Vidovich, Lesley, and Jan Currie. 2012. Governance networks: Interlocking
directorships of corporate and nonprofit boards. Nonprofit Management
and Leadership 22:507–23. [71]
Villadsen, Anders R. 2011. Structural embeddedness of political top executives
as explanation of policy isomorphism. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 21:573–99. [72]
Vogel, Rick. (2014). What happened to the public organization? A biblio-
metric analysis of public administration and organization studies. The
American Review of Public Administration 44: 383–408.
Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social network analy-
sis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Waterhouse, Jennifer, and Robyn Keast. 2012. Strategizing public sector
human resource management: The implications of working in networks.
International Journal of Public Administration 35:562–76. [73]
612 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
Weible, Christopher M. 2011. Political-administrative relations in col-
laborative environmental management. International Journal of Public
Administration 34:424–35. [74]
Weible, Christopher M., and Paul A. Sabatier. 2005. Comparing policy networks:
Marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal 33:181–201.
Weir, Margaret, Jane Rongerude, and Christopher K. Ansell. 2009.
Collaboration is not enough virtuous cycles of reform in transportation
policy. Urban Affairs Review 44:455–89. [75]
White Howard D. and Katherine W. McCain. 1998. Visualizing a discipline:
An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science 49:327–55.
Williamson, Oliver E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms,
Markets, Relational Contracting. New York, NY: Free Press.
Woolcock, Michael. 1998. Social capital and economic development: Toward
a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society
27:151–208.
Zaheer, Akbar, Bill McEvily, and Vincenzo Perrone. 1998. Does trust matter?
Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on per-
formance. Organization Science 9:141–59.
Zeemering, Eric S. 2012. International connections for local government sus-
tainability initiatives: Networks linking Detroit and Windsor. Journal of
Urban Affairs 36:119–40. [76]
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/26/4/593/2222477 by guest on 22 May 2022